Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnScripts:Les Misérables, Abrégés

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 18:55, August 3, 2009 by ChiefjusticeDS (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


edit UnScripts:Les Misérables, Abrégés

In depth, if possible, please. Thank you. MacMania 05:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have picked this one up, but my knowledge of the satirised piece is limited, so I'm hoping someone else will, soon. --ChiefjusticeDS 06:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'll have to pass too, I quite like doing reviews, and peeing, and combining the two, but my knowledge of the original play is pretty much zero. If you get desperate I can review it as a standalone article, or is it heavily reliant on knowledge of the Hugo? --El Sid, the lazy oneparlez-vous franglais? 19:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that just might be a weak point of the article. Just added a synopsis for the uninitiated. But you can go ahead and review it standalone. Although I don't think it's too reliant on the original works, you can give me feedback on that as well. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll pick it up then, expect a review shortly.--ChiefjusticeDS 21:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Humour: 7 OK, your humour is reasonable, but still has some issues that you need to address. Firstly the main problem is that even after carefully reading the synopsis and then rereading the script a lot of your jokes need you to take another look. Essentially you have the right idea but flawed execution. The jokes need to be carefully considered, granted I am not fully acquainted with the source for the humour, but as someone who has just picked up the article I can say that it's accessibility is a real bar. The new synopsis is a great help and made me laugh alone, your running joke of misery is also a good one. What I think needs work is the jokes that are made during the text. They are either obvious and presented with relatively unbecoming prose (think of the text in the original) the prose thing is less of an issue as it is consistent, but your jokes are relatively overt or difficult to understand as a first time reader.
Concept: 7 Your tone is reasonable, you have gone for casual over professional and while you are compressing a full length play this is fine. However I would urge you to check some of the featured UnScripts. You should, regardless of subject matter, be professional in tone when it comes to the actual script. Also try to stay truer to the actual script, the throwaway dialogue that you use, like: "Come on, she's fine!" does not, for me, lend itself to a story of any type. You should reconsider your tone, you could be just as amusing by using regular language rather than speaking colloquially and casually. Your tone is pretty consistent throughout and this is not a problem, just consider changing the tone for the actual script.
Prose and formatting: 9 This is pretty good and your spelling and grammar works pretty well. Your coherence could do with some attention is a couple of places as it can become ever so slightly incoherent in places, but not much to get too bothered about. Your formatting is reasonable, just check another couple of UnScripts so you can make sure the formatting of the text in your script is fine (I was unsure what the / meant in here). Stage directions etc should also be checked against other unscripts. You have plenty of images for the article and this is not a problem.
Images: 9.5 I like the images, especially the first one. The others are reasonable though the captions need a little work. They are generally pretty good. In fact only the captions need a tiny bit of work. They are otherwise my favourite part of the article.
Miscellaneous: 8 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 40.5 I think you have a pretty solid article here that definitely has what it takes to be excellent with a bit more work. Most of the changes you need to make are cosmetic and not very far reaching, so don't be too concerned. This is a good solid piece of writing and I hope to see more in the future. Good luck making any changes.
Reviewer: --ChiefjusticeDS 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools